None. I vote for who I think will do the better job. Besides, none of the parties fit all of my views.

A few topics for example...

I support a womans right to choose (Lib)
I support the death penalty (Con)
I support protecting the enviroment (Lib)
I support a strong national defense (Con)
I support stem cell research (Lib)
I support lower taxes (Con)

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. What we need is a "middle of the road" party

‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

I am a steadfast conservative. Politics in my local area, as well as the state, have kept me from belonging to the Republican party. Too many RINO's ... "republican in name only" ... who too often are worse than the democrat's are, or ever could be.
There is plenty of garbage strewn about the streets here from both parties, cover up's, scandals, and so on.
I certainly don't fit the bill by the Anti-American green party, and certainly not the libertarian party. I'm left without a party, I guess. Have Guinness, will travel.

I am a steadfast conservative. Politics in my local area, as well as the state, have kept me from belonging to the Republican party. Too many RINO's ... "republican in name only" ...

Republicans were moderates long before the Far Right Conservative movement tried to take the whole thing over. As soon as the radical right relaizes that and that they owe the moderates much more then the moderates owe them, the Republican party will finally have a truely steady hold on the government. The moderates are and always have been the TRUE base of the Republican Party.

I consider myself to be a conservative Libertarian.
Leave my taxes and guns alone,do all the heroin that you want to.Good luck with it.
Oh,and on the brew question,if I'm buying,it's Coors and/or Coors light.
If you are,whatever's coldest and closest to the barkeep.

Republicans were moderates long before the Far Right Conservative movement tried to take the whole thing over. As soon as the radical right relaizes that and that they owe the moderates much more then the moderates owe them, the Republican party will finally have a truely steady hold on the government. The moderates are and always have been the TRUE base of the Republican Party.

This sounds an awfull lot like the rhetoric coming from the Democrat's. We're really not out of mainstream, we're really not liberal, we're really just moderates, and so on.
What does this mean? It means they are only concerned about votes, and not really about getting anything done. Their more concerned about staying in power, all the while not really accomplishing anything with that power. Their more concerned about what poles say, rather than what needs, or should be done. All reasons why I refuse to associate with the republican party, at least at this point in time.
My stance on the republican party is based largely on my own state's politic's, though I do have some criticism of policies on the national level.
My stance as a conservative is not "far right", but rather as more a "description". It's more of an attempt to stay consistant in my belief's, rather than sellout to money, entirely. Something both major parties are guilty of.
I support conservative fiscal and social agenda's. I support tax cuts and so on. Not necesarily for the rich, but for myself and my family. Something this president has accomplished, not the republican party.

I support conservative fiscal and social agenda's. I support tax cuts and so on. Not necesarily for the rich, but for myself and my family. Something this president has accomplished, not the republican party.

So you want a social agenda that tells folks that if they are not you, then they are wrong? Sounds like the Southern Dem's of 1850-1965.

As for fiscal conservatives, it was the right wing self discribed true that tried to throw a Coup' over Newt Gingrich for not being conservative enough AFTER he lead the nation to a balanced budget. The Country does not need hard core from the Left or Right, what we need are statesmen that do what is right for everyone not just their side of the debate.

This sounds an awfull lot like the rhetoric coming from the Democrat's. We're really not out of mainstream, we're really not liberal, we're really just moderates, and so on.
What does this mean? It means they are only concerned about votes, and not really about getting anything done. Their more concerned about staying in power, all the while not really accomplishing anything with that power.

Why steamroll the minority just because you won the most resent election? That is not governing, that is dictating an edict sort of like the mullahs of the Middle East. It is not what the Founding Fathers on any side had in mind when they set up our system of government with our incredible Constitution which keeps any majority in check. You steamroll the minority and you are going to be in deep crap when you are back in the minority, it is what lead to the GOP Revolution of 1994 in the first place, and what the GOP is now headed to do themselves. Just by the very fact that the margins of victory lately have been so close shows that the people are more interested in good governing rather then any sweeping changes to the landscape. And well they should think that, overall we are in great shape socially, economically and in the national “Happy Quotient”.

[QUOTE=DennisTheMenace]So you want a social agenda that tells folks that if they are not you, then they are wrong? Sounds like the Southern Dem's of 1850-1965.
QUOTE]

Nice job on the spin, or better yet, putting words in my mouth. Never once did I suggest that those who are differant than myself are wrong. I hold a number of opinion's that are differant than those of the mainstream republican party, the reason for the statement's I made earlier. I hadn't realized that we had morphed this thread into a differant topic, already.

As for fiscal conservatives, it was the right wing self discribed true that tried to throw a Coup' over Newt Gingrich for not being conservative enough AFTER he lead the nation to a balanced budget. The Country does not need hard core from the Left or Right, what we need are statesmen that do what is right for everyone not just their side of the debate.

The majority of my issue with the republican party is at the state level, no more, no less. I am fairly happy with our federal level of government, it is my state and local government with which the real issue is, for me.
My state has been driven by a lack of fiscal restraint, as well as over taxation for a number of years. Both sides of the aisle are as guilty as the other, here.
No politician has ever reduced my tax burdon, except at the federal level.

Again though, you are missing my point in my complaint about the GOP. They are driven by special interest groups, and the money they are given. The same is true with the democrat's. Until some of these particular issue's are solved, it is whoever has the most money gets their way. It has nothing to do with this high and mighty moderation garbage.
I can agree with you, we do need statesmen. We need politicians who do what is right for our country, not for their donors. Were close now, but certain issues show that money still talks the loudest.

So you want a social agenda that tells folks that if they are not you, then they are wrong? Sounds like the Southern Dem's of 1850-1965.

Nice job on the spin, or better yet, putting words in my mouth. Never once did I suggest that those who are differant than myself are wrong. I hold a number of opinion's that are differant than those of the mainstream republican party, the reason for the statement's I made earlier. I hadn't realized that we had morphed this thread into a differant topic, already.

I try to return the spin I am sent with a nice counter rotation and a slight curve.

The majority of my issue with the republican party is at the state level, no more, no less. I am fairly happy with our federal level of government, it is my state and local government with which the real issue is, for me.
My state has been driven by a lack of fiscal restraint, as well as over taxation for a number of years. Both sides of the aisle are as guilty as the other, here.
No politician has ever reduced my tax burdon, except at the federal level.

Again though, you are missing my point in my complaint about the GOP. They are driven by special interest groups, and the money they are given. The same is true with the democrat's. Until some of these particular issue's are solved, it is whoever has the most money gets their way. It has nothing to do with this high and mighty moderation garbage.
I can agree with you, we do need statesmen. We need politicians who do what is right for our country, not for their donors. Were close now, but certain issues show that money still talks the loudest.

For the career politician the campaighn money goes to those that are potentially successful, the success does not go to those with them money. The majority of those guys worked their way up the ladder at elected positions that don't pay squat. Only occasionally do you get the Bill Frists that just jump into it with their millions, but even then, that money came from success in another field(although very well seeded with his dad's money )

But with your last line you are forgetting, a politician and a statesmen are two totally different characters. Bill Clinton was possibly our nations greatest "politician" ever, but he was not much of a Statesman.

I’m independent. And let me tell you I was the most important person ever this election year. I had to be with all the people that called me. Everyone from Arnold to Bush himself. I would have at least ten messages every night when I go home. It was unreal. Who would of guessed not claiming one party or the other would of helped me to get all these calls

Well,a WWII Admiral is quoted as saying"When you are in command,command."
This means that when a President has a majority of his Party's members in office along with him,he gets to decide how the country is run.There should be checks and balances,like we are taught in Civics class in HS but the President has the final say in how the national policy is set.
You might not like it and don't have to but you had your say when you cast your vote and write your congresscritter.(You DO write your congresscritter,don't you?)
Politicians and Reverends with a politcal agenda running off to countries and then spouting their opinion of what should be done,instead of meeting privately with the President and asking him to consider their opinion for an action aren't helping.
My general opinion of politicians,anyway,comes from Stephen Coonts' book"Flight of the Minotaur"where a naval officer assigned to Pentagon duty mutters"Politicians.If you rendered the lot of 'em,you wouldn't end up with a thimblefull of scruples."

Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace

Why steamroll the minority just because you won the most resent election? That is not governing, that is dictating an edict sort of like the mullahs of the Middle East.

Taxing people until there is a surplus isn't financial responsibility.It's overcharging people for services rendered.
If you found out that Wally World had overcharged you for a TV set or tire change,you'd march back in,reciept in hand,demanding your money back and if you were mad enough,someone's job over the amount.
Now that I've said my piece,I will remind people that three subjects are tabboo at any well run wardroom table-politics,women and religion.This is to avoid hard feelings among people who HAVE to work and live together or they very well could die together.

Originally Posted by scfire86

Since I believe fiscal responsibility is crucial to our national economy I'm forced to be a democrat.

I’m independent. And let me tell you I was the most important person ever this election year. I had to be with all the people that called me. Everyone from Arnold to Bush himself. I would have at least ten messages every night when I go home. It was unreal. Who would of guessed not claiming one party or the other would of helped me to get all these calls

Did not matter if you claimed a party or not, I got calls from all sides too in this past election.

Well,a WWII Admiral is quoted as saying"When you are in command,command."
This means that when a President has a majority of his Party's members in office along with him,he gets to decide how the country is run.There should be checks and balances,like we are taught in Civics class in HS but the President has the final say in how the national policy is set.
You might not like it and don't have to but you had your say when you cast your vote and write your congresscritter.(You DO write your congresscritter,don't you?)
Politicians and Reverends with a politcal agenda running off to countries and then spouting their opinion of what should be done,instead of meeting privately with the President and asking him to consider their opinion for an action aren't helping.
My general opinion of politicians,anyway,comes from Stephen Coonts' book"Flight of the Minotaur"where a naval officer assigned to Pentagon duty mutters"Politicians.If you rendered the lot of 'em,you wouldn't end up with a thimblefull of scruples."

See there is the problem, you have just demonstrated how too many people do not understand our system of government and get their education about it from pop FICTION.

The President has taken charge and done what he can under the Constitution, he can not just run roughshod around changing things to his personal liking and whims of the moment. Things were set up that way for a reason. Congress also must work together to change what some would like.

Placeing your moral views on the people on such issues as family, abortion, etc. is NOT leadership. That is legislating, there is a HUGE difference and different parts of the government has different roles. You might remember a term from fifth grade civics class called "checks and balances". The President DOES NOT have the final say on how National Policy is set, he is just one part of the balance of power in saying how it should be set. Granted being the single head of his particular branch of governement gives him the largest individual say, that is only one third of the total that he must share with the 9 top guys/girls in the Judiciary(and those at lower levels) and the 535 of the legislative branch. What you propse is that the President of the United States be allowed to operate as an elected dictator.

The founding fathers intended for thing to be tough to change, the situation that the nation is in is by design, there is no good point in a single party/political faction being allowed to run make major changes because they have temporary power(and it is ALWAYS temporary).

Taxing people until there is a surplus isn't financial responsibility.It's overcharging people for services rendered.
If you found out that Wally World had overcharged you for a TV set or tire change,you'd march back in,reciept in hand,demanding your money back and if you were mad enough,someone's job over the amount.
Now that I've said my piece,I will remind people that three subjects are tabboo at any well run wardroom table-politics,women and religion.This is to avoid hard feelings among people who HAVE to work and live together or they very well could die together.

While I am with you on the issue, that is a totally screwed up example. Wally World can charge you what ever the heck they want to charge you. If the price on the tag is what you paid at the register it is not over charging even if you paid $500 for a can of Coca-Cola.

There is no retail comparison to the government and its spending. The debate should be how much of a surplus/debit window is best for the country, the taxpayers, and the economy. It is a legit debate that should be had. Simple cognitive thought will let you know that with a multi-trillion dollar budget, there is no way that the actual revenues and expenditures will ever be in perfect balance. So what should we aim for in the max debit we should be willing to take on, and what is the max surplus that we she feel is right in the government holding before refunds are issued or the next years tax rate is lowered. It is a VERY difficult if not impossible balancing act and it is there at every level of governenment from a small hamlets budget through the state level and up to the federal level. I wish I had the answer to the right level, it requires a serious understanding of economics and a crystal ball, but all that we have is one guy in a white house to send a wish list to 535 guys in a domed white building on a hill to try and come up with a common opinion on the way to go with it all.

Agreeing with one my favorite authors isn't getting educated by pop fiction.I've worked on a few campaigns when I was a kid and after seeing how most politicians treat people after the election is over and done with causes me to find the mental image of a politician in a rendering vat kind of funny.
I do know about checks and balances.I saw the previous administration actually admit that they were looking for ways around the Constitution to enact more gun control than it was legally to do.Because the system is hard to change,despite what the media and other people who hate Freedom wanted to do,they couldn't and the Judicial Branch overruled the Executive branch,like it's supposed to be able to do.
I never said anything about a dictator.The President has to be the one held accountable for what happens on his watch,just like a ship's Captain or Officer of the Deck.When he screws up,he is roasted for it and when he makes us all proud,he should be praised for it,no matter what political party he belongs to.
For this reason,the President should be able to set policy for the nation,even though Congress might shoot him down.